header-logo header-logo

17 May 2007
Issue: 7273 / Categories: Legal News , Damages
printer mail-detail

Legal bid to bring back compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice

Solicitors are mounting a legal challenge in the High Court against the Home Office decision to abolish a discretionary compensation scheme for victims of miscarriages of justice.

Seven firms—Bhatt Murphy, Bindman & Partners, Bird Solicitors, Fisher Meredith, Hickman & Rose, Hodge Jones & Allen and Stephensons—plus three individual claimants, mounted a judicial review last week, arguing the government acted “unfairly and unlawfully” when it abruptly ended the scheme last April. Judgment has been reserved.

Charles Clarke, the then Home Secretary, said the scheme was “confusing and anomalous”, predated international agreements and standards, cost an annual average of £2m to run and only benefited five to 10 people each year, when he announced its abolition.

A separate statutory scheme set up under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to comply with the UK’s international law obligations still exists. Compensation is capped at £500,000.

Hickman & Rose partner, Jane Hickman, says: “The schemes cover different kinds of cases.

“The statutory scheme only covers people who are cleared when new evidence comes

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll